is why Pitt is in Dayton, Nevada got in, and Utah State was in so safely. As I said all year, NET is used first and then you can move up or down your NET seed line by a few.
Nothing but NET
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
In other words….these clowns on the committee don’t watch ball.
If they went strictly by the NET we would be a 17 seed.
What seed did we get again?
What seed did we get again?
What I've said all year. They have 80 hour/week jobs. Of course they dont watch college basketball. They get a team sheet and Pitt's computer numbers suck. As do Rutgers's.
NC State seeded over Pitt is a joke makes no sense and they got a decent draw too playing Creighton as a 6 seed.
Didnt say strictly. It serves as a basis. If Pitt lost by a few points to Mich, WVU, and Duke, we'd be a 8 seed. Its extremely stupid to use scoring margin to seed
Would it matter if they watched every game? You're trying to compare teams that play completely different schedules, and it's not possible.
Right. Teams don't move more than a couple seed lines.
Except us, who moved up six of them.
North Texas - 38
Rutgers - 40
Oklahoma State - 43
Liberty - 44
North Carolina - 46
Oregon - 47
Ohio State - 52
New Mexico - 54
UAB - 57
Clemson - 60
Michigan - 61
Florida - 62
Texas Tech - 63
Sam Houston - 65
Arizona State - 66
Pitt - 67
Everyone remember this in the future when someone who absolutely does not understand the NET or how the NET is used is on here trying to tell you how things are based on team's NET rankings.
Rutgers - 40
Oklahoma State - 43
Liberty - 44
North Carolina - 46
Oregon - 47
Ohio State - 52
New Mexico - 54
UAB - 57
Clemson - 60
Michigan - 61
Florida - 62
Texas Tech - 63
Sam Houston - 65
Arizona State - 66
Pitt - 67
Everyone remember this in the future when someone who absolutely does not understand the NET or how the NET is used is on here trying to tell you how things are based on team's NET rankings.
Dude, come on. You are proving my point. Of the teams you listed, the overall resumes of all but a couple are pathetic. OSU, Michigan, SHSU, UAB, etc. Rutgers and OK St were the only teams Pitt passed. The rest couldn't be considered for an 11 seed.
Your point is that a team's NET ranking is the most important part of their resume. You have directly said that on several different occasions. And yet here it is again, another year when team's NET rankings are NOT the most important part of their resume, and in fact are barely used, if at all.
If the NET was anywhere near as important as you have posted for months that it is then us and Arizona State not only would not be playing in the first four, we'd have been no where close to being in. But fortunately for us, and as some of us have been pointing out all along, you have been full of crap on this from the first day you posted about it.
Still, after all this time, you have no idea what the NET is and how it is used.
I only proved your point if your point was to admit that you are, in fact, clueless.
It is by far the most important factor. It probably counts for 80% of your resume. Rutgers was eliminated because they had 4 Q3 losses. OK St (who I had in over NC State) was eliminated due to the sheer number of losses. OSU had a losing record. UNT was 4-5 in Q1/2 and had 2 Q3/4 losses. Those are eliminators
This is another one of those things that you think if you keep saying it it will be true.
It's not. It never has been. Obviously so. To almost everyone but you.
Pitt would be an 8/9 seed if they lost those 3 close......because of NET.
This is another one of those things that you think if you keep saying it it will be true.
Pitt was 7-9 Q1/2 which is about the same win% and also has 2 Q3/4 losses, likely in less games played.
So I guess they aren’t eliminators.
It's almost as if they consider a lot of different things.
Which comes as a shock to no one except SMF.
Pitt’s Quad 1 road wins over Northwestern, NC State, and North Carolina I think are what ultimately got them in over teams like Rutgers, Ok St, North Carolina and Clemson when you start to compare resumes. Clemson I think losing to both Louisville and Boston College even though aside from that they had you could argue a tournament worthy resume was ultimately what kept them out of the tournament at the end of the day.
I would like him to explain how Nevada got in. They are a Mountain West team that is 21-10 that is 7-8 in Q1/2 with 2 Q3 losses. They gamed NET. Only played 3 Q4 games and have a NET of 37, which was too high to leave out. Period. Talent-wise, they are a 4 or 5 seed in the NIT.
I would also like him to answer if we would have gotten a bye had we lost to Duke by 1 and our NET remained at 55. The scoring margin dropped us a full seed line and into Dayton. This is really easy.
I'm not defending the NET at all. I am trying to explain the NET and how it is used mostly to a person who thinks that they understand it that obviously doesn't. And trying to explain it to the people who listen to and believe the person who has no idea what he's talking about, so that they might know the way that this actually works.
I mean look at what happened. The NET is the singular most important thing, according to someone. And yet there were 15 teams that had better NET rankings that us that didn't make the tournament. Heck, there were even two teams that had better NET rankings than us (not including North Carolina) that didn't even make the NIT. Yet SMF keeps saying that the NET is the most important thing by far, and other people read that and because they don't like our NET the think that must be right.
It's not.
Directly from the NCAA:
"The purpose of the NCAA’s Evaluation Tool ranking (i.e. NET) is to sort teams into the four quadrants on the team sheets the men’s basketball selection committee uses for selection and seeding."
"It is not a deciding factor."
"It is not going to determine if a team is in or out of the bracket."
"It is an organizational piece for the committee."
Joe, you cant deny it is the single most important factor. Do you really need me to go line by mine on your 15 teams?
SHSU 2 Q1/2 wins. 3 Q3/4 losses
Yale 0 Q1, 2 Q2 wins, 3 Q3/4 losses
TT 16-16
Fla 16-16
Mich 17-15, 2-12 Q1, 1 Q4 loss
Clemson - I could have seen them in over us but they have 4 Q3/4 losses and that's an eliminator. I had them in
UAB 3-7 Q1/2 3 Q3/4 losses
UNM 6-8 Q1/2 4 Q3/4 losses
Ohio St 16-19
Oregon 19-14, 9-13 Q1/2
UNC 1-9 Q1
Liberty 0 Q1, 1 Q2
OK St 6-12 Q1, 1 Q3 loss
Rutgers 4 Q3 losses
North Texas 4-5 Q1/2, 2 Q3/4 losses
Then you have Nevada, whose resume was ass but at #37, their NET was simply too high to leave out. With 2 Q3 losses and only home wins over SDSU, Boise, and USU, they had no business in the field.
So, again, all those teams ahead of Pitt had eliminators. Luckily for Pitt, we only had 2 Q3/4 losses and enough Q1/2 wins. Had we had 1 extra Q1 win but also and extra Q3 loss, we likely wouldn't have made it.
Last edited:
The funny thing is that you keep saying it's the most important thing, and then you keep listing things that are more important.
And you don't see just how dumb that is.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Hops runs in the family with this former Panther's son
- Latest: Panther_in_Kentucky
-
-
-
-